vernment, as the proclamation of the privy council before-mentioned doth abundantly clear; and these meetings are mere episcopal meetings, as is shown. 3. And as to the ground of the objection, namely, that the magistrate hath power to convocate synods, it would require a longer time than can be now allowed to discuss the same, and to try how and in what cases it will hold good; but this is certain, that the judgment of the church of Scotland as to this particular, as may be seen in the act of assembly, 1647, approving the confession of faith, and prefixed thereunto, is, "That in churches constituted (such as the church of Scotland was) the magistrate's authority is not sufficient to call a synod without any other call; that is, without delegation from their churches, and that is free to ministers to assemble together synodically, as well pro re nata as at the ordinary times, upon delegation from the churches, by their intrinsical power received from Christ, as often as it is necessary, in case the magis trate deny his consent." But be it granted (as in some cases it may), yet it will not follow that, therefore, ministers were bound in conscience to have countenanced those meetings, and that for these reasons: 1. Because these were no extraordinary synods called by his Majesty pro re nata; nor, 2. Were they any of the former synods used while presbyterian government was in force; but, 3. They were new meetings, upon new principles, having their rise from a new spring and fountain, and constituted otherwise in a new form, and so they were no meetings consonant unto the principles of presbyterian government, but wholly dissonant, and meetings complying with, and flowing from, episcopal power and jurisdiction, and ordered by prelatical authority and appointment. 3. Countenancing of these meetings upon the matter, would have been an assenting and consenting unto the pulling down of presbyterian government, which they were sworn to maintain. 4. Yea, it would have been a fearful matter of offence and stumbling unto the godly and truly tender, and a hardening of others who had complied, and, withal, a dangerous casting of themselves into temptation, as experience doth abundantly prove daily, and therefore this command could not be obeyed; for no command of a magistrate can warrant any to sin, by doing that which is in itself sinful, yea, or what is a real ground of offence unto

others (providing the matter be not absolutely necessary, antecedently, unto the command of the magistrate).

But he addeth, "Is this rational, that, where two commands of the magistrate are joined, the one undoubtedly lawful, the other doubted of, that subjects should disobey the magistrate in that which is clearly lawful, because they have a doubt or unclearness anent obeying him in the other command?

-had they come to the place it would, pro tanto, have showed their respect unto authority." Ans. It is a great question if this man speak rationally here. Doth he think that the civil magistrate did intend two commands in that one? He may as well say that he did intend twenty. Will he so metaphysically anatomise the commands of councils and parliaments as to render them ridiculous? Would he have had ministers sporting and jesting in such a serious matter with the supreme magistrate? If they had come to town and seen what o'clock it was, and then returned home, would this Casuist have cleared them either pro tanto or pro toto? Nay, he would, without all doubt, have exaggerated that crime as the height of contempt, and as an open preaching and proclaiming of their contempt unto the world; but, in such a sad declining time, the faithful ministers of Christ had some other thing to think upon than thus to sport themselves and niock authority, by halving or quartering the commands and injunctions thereof; and therefore would neither get on horseback, nor come half the way, nor to the place appointed, because they might not, in conscience, concur with the prelate there in that diocesan meeting, which was the only thing commanded; and their coming to the town was no more commanded (save as subservient thereunto) than their rising out of their bed that morning, or their taking horse, &c.

In the third place he addeth, "What ground could they have for separation from the synod? Is it the want of liberty to choose a moderator? Is it that he who presideth is a bishop, and claimeth more power than they can allow, as of a negative voice? or is it the want of unpreaching elders in the meeting?" It is neither any of these alone, nor all of them together, is the full and complete ground; but this, That it is a meeting called together by the civil magistrate, assuming to himself power to cast

down the established government of the church and the primitive government, and to settle what kind of government he thinketh fit, as best complying with his own and his subjects' humours, and who, accordingly, hath razed to the foundation presbyterian government, unto which both he and all the lands were sworn, and is setting up prelatical government, against which he and all the lands have sworn; of which these three particulars mentioned are so many evidences. And that they are so cannot be denied; for, 1. Whatever truth be in this assertion, that ecclesiastic judicatories have a divine warrant for choosing their own moderator, this is clear and undeniable, that while presbyterial government was in its integrity and vigour the assemblies of the church, national, provincial and presbyterial, had this privilege, to elect their own moderator; and whenever prelates began to rise and get entrance in that church, this encroachment, among others, she did suffer at their hands; for they knew that invasio perpetuæ dictature would be via ad imperium,-constant moderators would usher the way for domineering prelates (as was shown sect. 1). And, therefore, this is a clear evidence of the change of the government from presbyterial to prelatical. Further, though that which Zeperus saith, namely, Presides ecclesiastici, &c., "The moderators or presidents of the ancient councils were sometimes named by the emperor," be true, yet it will be a mere non sequitur to conclude thence, as this author doth, namely, "That it is lawful for the Christian magistrate, upon whom the external ordering of all the judicatories in his dominions depends, to nominate out of a meeting of ministers, convened by him, one of the number, to order the actions of the meeting, and by his authority to control the unruly," not only as being a concluding of a general from a particular, but as being a putting into the conclusion what is not in the premises, and a mixing of heterogeneous things together. What he meaneth by this "external ordering of judicatories," who can tell? unless it be all that power which ordinarily is exercised by a moderator. And will he say that the magistrate ought to choose all the moderators? Hath the supreme magistrate any more interest in those meetings, or hath he so much, as he hath in civil meetings? and doth he appoint all the mouths of these meetings? But have not church judicatories within themselves

power for their own external ordering? Who then ordered the synod at Jerusalem? Acts xv. To say the magistrate was not then Christian, and therefore it did not belong unto him, is enough to prove that it doth not belong to him as a magistrate. But there is enough said to this here, which is but barely asserted by him without proof; and, 2. As to the next, whatever be asserted concerning that which Mr Baxter and Mr Vines (as he reporteth of them) say, namely, "That for peace, presbyters may suspend the exercise of their just authority, and resolve to give to one person of their number a negative voice." Though many more divines, with greater reason, think that, seeing God hath given them no power whereof they may denude themselves when they think fit, and suspend the exercise of at the nod of any other, it cannot be lawful for them to give that negative voice unto any; yet this is undeniable, that there never was any such thing claimed by, nor granted to any, all the time that that church enjoyed presbyterian government; and it is as undeniable that, so soon as prelates got up unto their chairs, they challenged that negative voice to themselves, as their due, and took it whether presbyters would or not; and so have the prelates done to-day. And therefore this concession of these eminent men, were it never so true, as it is denied by many, is nothing to the point; for, by this one particular, it is as clear as the noonday that the government is altered from presbyterian to episcopal, and therefore, though it be true that the personal fault of another cannot be a good ground for brethren's withdrawing from their duty, yet when, by their concurrence to consult alone (when, by God's law, they have equal authority with any that sitteth there) they shall consent unto that change of government, it becometh sin and not duty; for now all presbyterian government is overturned, they see prelates set up as before so that if they concur they cannot avoid sin. To say, as he doth a little before, p. 8, "That it might be permitted to them, if they entreated for it, to ease their consciences, by signifying their scruples, so be they would do it with that inoffensive modesty, humilty and respect unto the supreme authority, and to the laws of the land," is to please the simple (that believe every thing) with a fair word; for it behoved to be done with such inoffensive modesty, and humility, as nobody should

either hear or know of it,-otherwise, they might be sure it would be accounted disrespect unto the supreme authority and to the laws of the land, and they might expect presently to be attacked and processed. Lastly, as to the third particular, Whether the opinion of Mr Vines, Mr Baxter and Mr Blondel (if he speak truth), in denying the divine right of ruling elders, be assented unto, or rather, the contrary opinion, which is owned by so many churches and professors, and particularly by the church of Scotland, from the beginning, yet this is clear, that that church had still such officers so long as she was governed communi consilio presbyterorum,-by presbyteries; and not sooner did prelates usurp the place but they shouldered these officers to the door; and therefore this is another palpable evidence that the nature of these meetings is changed from presbyterian to episcopal: so that to concur, by meeting with the prelates at their diocesan meetings, must be an approving of Prelacy; and this cannot be done without perjury.

But he objecteth, p. 12, thus: "Our worthy ancestors choosed rather to concur with such meetings than to desert them." Ans. The case then and now differeth far; for then these judicatories were standing when the prelates were brought in upon them, and ministers were then bound to keep possession of their rights so long as they could, and by meeting in the judicatories (there being no restraint laid upon them by law from speaking their mind freely, and protesting as they saw occasion, as is now, when such actings are declared treasonable and seditious) they were in a capacity to do something for vindicating of church privileges, at least for exonerating their own consciences, yea, and for curbing, in a great part, the prelates' power. Whence it was that neither the prelates nor the estates did ever command ministers to attend those meetings, but rather wished, with all their heart, that they had forborne to come; but now presbyterian government is quite overturned, all presbyterian assemblies are discharged under the highest pain, and, after prelates are advanced, and never till then, there cometh forth a new order for new meetings upon new principles, meetings otherwise constituted than formerly; in a word, such meetings as did but serve to approve of and confirm prelates in their place and power, and therefore all were com

manded by the estates to concur with the prelates in their meetings under a penalty. So that it is but a mere falsehood to say "that the meetings then and now are of the same constitution, nothing altered;" for then they were hedges standing in the prelates' way, though much weakened by reason of the civil power opposing, but now they are props to support and strengthen the hands of the prelates, as being wholly ruled and guided by them.

By what is said it is hoped that tender Christians will see that there was no small ground of scrupling at these meetings, and that they will be loath rashly to condemn such as feared to transgress in the least, and resolved rather to suffer than to sin, seeing it is now beyond controversy that their concurring in those meetings had been, upon the matter, a consenting unto, and an approving of prelatical government, upon which account alone the faithful servants of Christ did refuse to concur.

"all

Thus the Lord was pleased to keep his servants out of this snare which the prelates had caused plait for their consciences, but there are others and stronger following. The parliament, in their second session, anno 1662, made an act, ordaining ministers who had entered to the cure of any parish within burgh or land, in or since the year of God 1649, to have no right unto, nor uplift the rents of their respective benefices, modified stipends, manse or glebe, for this instant year 1662, nor for any year following, unless they should obtain a presentation from the lawful patron, and have collation from the bishop of the diocese where he liveth, before the 20th of September next." For understanding of this it would be considered, that, before the year 1649, the church was groaning under that sore oppression of lay patrons having power to present ministers unto benefices, and then the parliament was pleased to discharge all presentations of kirks and patronages, whether belonging to the king or to any lay patron, upon good and weighty grounds, as

the narrative of their 39th act, March 9, 1649, showeth, in these words: "The estates of parliament, being sensible of the great obligation that lieth upon them by the national covenant, and by the solemn league and covenant, and by many deliverances and mercies from God, and by the late solemn engagement unto duties, to preserve the doctrine, and maintain and vindicate the liberties of the kirk of Scotland, and to advance the work of reformation therein to the utmost of their power; and considering that patronages and presentation of kirks is an evil and bondage under which the Lord's people and ministers of this land hath long groaned, and that it hath no warrant in God's word, but is founded only on the common law, and is a custom popish, and brought into the kirk in time of ignorance and superstition, and that the same is contrary to the second book of discipline, in which, upon solid and good ground, it is reckoned among abuses that are desired to be reformed, and unto several acts of the General Assembly, and that it is prejudicial to the liberty of the people, and planting of kirks, and unto the free calling and entering of ministers unto their charge." And after this ministers entered by the call of the people of whom they were to have charge. Now this parliament will have this piece of reformation undone, and the church brought back unto her old state of bondage, and so will have ministers to seek for these presentations, and thereafter to go to the bishop for his license and approbation to officiate and exercise the ministerial function.

But the faithful and zealous servants of Christ had not freedom or liberty to do either of these, and therefore resolved to suffer rather than to sin.

They had not freedom to go to seek a presentation, for these reasons :

1. Because they saw no warrant for such a way of entering into the ministry allowed of Christ or his apostles, nor practised many hundreds of years thereafter; and therefore to approve of such a way had been a sin.

2. The church had been long groaning under that oppression and bondage, and was desirous to be rid thereof at the very beginning, but could never obtain it until 1649. Now, if they had obeyed this act, and submitted unto this oppression, they had consented unto the spoiling of the church of her privileges, and had condemned that

worthy and renowned parliament who were graciously moved of God to take off this yoke off her neck.

3. They should, in so far, have consented unto the defection now carried on; for this was a piece thereof. The restoring of the church unto her rights and privileges was a part of the work of reformation, yea, and no small part thereof, and when this privilege is taken away the work of reformation is in so far overturned, and therefore such as would have sought presentations should have made defection themselves, and have consented unto, and approved of the parliament in carrying on the work of defection, in so far.

4. By the 36th act of the first session of this parliament, it is "ordained that the person to be presented shall, in presence of the patron, or his attorney, and of the sheriff of the shire, steward of the stewardry, or heritable baillie, or commissioner of the bounds, if it be in the country, and of the magistrate of the burghs within the burgh, before the granting and their accepting of the presentation, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance, otherwise his presentation is null and void of itself." Now, as shall be shown hereafter, no man could, with a safe conscience, take that oath as it was tendered by this parliament.

5. They should have thereby condemned the manner of elections by the people, and consequently themselves, as being hitherto intruders, because entering into the ministry without a lawful call, namely, without the presentation of the patron.

But it will be objected, That all the ministers of Scotland who entered before the year 1649 should, by this means, be condemned as intruders, entering without a lawful call. Ans. Though patronages cannot but be condemned as sinful, tending to ruin the church, and to defraud her of much advantage (beside the spoiling and robing her of her privileges and liberties, which are purchased to her by the blood of Christ), because the patron (who sometime may be a profane person, and a persecutor) either hath not understanding to discern the spirits, or will not make choice of the best and most able minister,-yet such as entered that way before the year 1649 cannot altogether be condemned, partly because then the evil of it was not so fully seen and perceived; partly because that evil had not been reformed, and there was no other way of

up

entry practised or practicable by law; and so, though they might groan under that burden, yet they could not get it helped, and so their fault was less than the fault of such would be who have now seen this evil reformed, and have seen (or at least might have seen) the evil of it, and have been called orderly and duly, conform to the way of election set down in the New Testament for imitation. How great should the guilt of such be if they should now again lick that vomit, and submit unto that yoke! More may be said for the justifying of those who submit unto a yoke under which they were born, and from which neither they nor their forefathers were delivered, than of those who have been delivered, and yet consent again to go under the yoke, and thereby do betray the precious interests of Christ's church, and with their own hands wreath that yoke about the neck of the church under which she had been groaning many a year before.

It will be objected again, That they have already the consent of the people, being called by them before, and so the church's liberties are preserved, and their entry is valid enough. Ans. It is true they have had the call of the people, but that will not make their compliance with this course of defection the less sinful, but rather the more; for by their taking presentations now, they do, upon the matter, declare that they were not duly called before, and so they condemn the way of entry by election as not lawful, and say that the way of entry by presentations from patrons is the only lawful way; for the patron's presentation is not cumulative unto, but privative and destructive of the people's liberty of free election, because, where patrons do present, the people's suffrages are never asked, and, where people have power to elect, patrons have no place to present; so that the one destroyeth the other; and therefore, if any who have been called by the people, any freely chosen, should now take presentations, it would import that, in their judgment, they were never duly called till now, and this were to annul their former election which they had from the people.

Next (which was to them of greater moment), they could not, with freedom of conscience, go to the prelate and seek collation, for these reasons:

1. Because there is no warrant in all the word of God for any such thing,—no com

mand for it, no precedent or example of it,

66

and Christian ministers must walk by the rule of the word. Now the Scripture showeth no difference betwixt a call and a mission, but both are one, Rom. i. 1; Luke vi. 13; Acts xv. 25; and their ministry being a work, 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; 1 Tim. v. 17; 1 Cor. iii. 6-10; 1 Cor. vi. 1, and they called "workmen," Matt. ix. 37, 38; stewards," 1 Cor. iv. 1; "watchmen," Ezek. iii. 2; Isa. lii. 8; "shepherds," Eph. iv. 11; "overseers, "and the like, Tit. i. 5, 7; Acts xx. 28; Heb. xiii. 17; Acts xv. 22,-their very call conferreth the power, and layeth an express obligation on them to perform the work; otherwise, by their call and ordination, they should only receive a disposition for the work. See much more to this purpose in Voetius, Desperata Causa Papatus, against Jansen the Papist, lib. ii., sect. 2, cap. 17.

2. By this means they should have condemned themselves, as not being lawful ministers before, or at least not such ministers as might lawfully exercise the office of a minister.

3. They should in effect have annulled the ordination which they had by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery; because, by their deed, they should have said that, notwithstanding of that ordination, they had no power to exercise the office, and thus,

4. They should have mocked this ordinance of Jesus Christ, of solemnly setting apart one for the work of the ministry, by saying, in effect, that it is but a mere blind; for notwithstanding that one be solemnly ordained by the presbytery, according to the primitive pattern, yet the person ordained must have his recourse unto another, in a superior order, for liberty to put in exercise what he hath got in potentia or in actu signato, the like whereof cannot be shown in all the Scriptures. Where read we that ever any who were ordained by a presbytery might not exercise the office without a new license from some other? To what end serveth ordination if it be not for setting of one apart for the work? That office or power is a cipher, and altogether useless, which cannot be exercised, and is not like an office or power granted by Jesus Christ.

5. By this means they should fully acknowledge the power and authority of prelates over presbyters, and so subscribe unto their jurisdiction, and acknowledge them to